http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages
of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold a
prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army general
in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners,
even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied: "Not
inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday after
getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.



Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin,
listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders
and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq
Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the
article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the
inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy
that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the
Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of
abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking
Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials
Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion
of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been
reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of
prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the
presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without
hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story and
workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Dave Hall wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold a
prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army general
in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners,
even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied: "Not
inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday after
getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin,
listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders
and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq
Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the
article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the
inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy
that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the
Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of
abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking
Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials
Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion
of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been
reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of
prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the
presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without
hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story and
workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)



Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Dave Hall wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out
a written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army
report issued last September said investigators could not find any
copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of
spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level
Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and
Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of
the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But
the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no
policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied
the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy
of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005:
"High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse,
Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the
conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper
has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse
of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe
in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true
without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story
and workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:02:30 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages
of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave